Is this the same band of rat monkeys at The New York Times who were busy ridiculing all of us in the aftermath of the 2000 and 2004 Presidential election who were crying foul and fraud and who were to a man and on every detail proven right?
And now they want to pose as the guarantors of our future democracy?
Why? So they can build back up their cred so when next racist Jews lust for Muslim blood they are better able to flip the switch?
I'd agree that The New York Times tries to appear to be left wing, and on inconsequential matters it may succeed, but mongering for war the last time I checked was definitely not a liberal persuasion.
It isn't just the constant news coverage citing "unnamed sources" in an effort to implicate this or that group of Muslims in various imagined transgressions, even after they promised to swear off using unnamed sources, it's deciding to wait until after the 2004 election to tell us about Bush's illegal wiretapping, or not telling us about the 9-11 Commission Report citing American support for Israeli atrocities against Palestinians as the reason for the attack, or continually over-reporting acts of violence committed by Muslims against Jews while under-reporting acts of violence committed by Jews against Muslims (did you know that Israelis have killed nearly four times as many Muslims as vice versa? My point exactly.)
When you put it all together -- and by no means is the above a comprehensive list of their transgressions -- a picture emerges of a paper driven by racism and allegiance to Israel above all things, including America.
Everybody goes on about the corporate media when talking about media support for this war, well, here's some news: The New York Times is by far the worst offender in this regard, and it isn't corporate-owned at all! It's a family paper.
Ad Block them. Starve the war machine. Kill the propaganda machine before it succeeds in killing us.
It means that more people will read their insidious shit. They ridiculed all of us who challenged the 2004 election results. They've been championing the war on Iraq since before its inception. They're cheerleading right now for war on Iran.
And don't even get me started on their coverage of the war on drugs.
But here you all are, celebrating the fact that your generation's Goebbels is about to become even more destructive than it was before.
(If you haven't already done so, please read the Iranian nuke vs. Israeli nuke post, you can consider this post to be a continuation and/or expansion of the points made therein.)
M.A.D. of course stands for Mutual Assured Destruction. It is what passes for sanity these days in international affairs. That said, it is also enjoying over a half-century of success. M.A.D. is the policy that justifies the nuclear arsenals being deployed throughout the world. The Soviet Union had them because the U.S. had them. France and the U.K. had them because the Soviet Union had them. China had them because all of the above had them. India had them because of China, Pakistan because of India. Now we see North Korea has them: they have them because we have them, we're the adversary sitting on the other side of the D.M.Z.
Every nation in possession of nuclear weapons today has them because they're afraid some other nation has them and they're afraid that if they don't similarly arm themselves, their nation may only exist in the future as an entry in a history book.
Every nation but one of course: Israel. Israel has no nuclear-armed adversaries. To be sure, it has adversaries aplenty, arguably of its own making, but it has demonstrated repeatedly now that its military -- as provided for by the U.S. taxpayer -- is handily capable of defending against any manner of aggression these adversaries are capable of producing.
The other way of saying this is that Israel is the only nuclear nation in the world today that is not employing M.A.D. as the rationale for possessing its nuclear arsenal. Israel is doing something else.
(that's alarming because M.A.D., as policy, works. Israel pursuing some other policy therefore is really terrifying.)
Here is a story by The Sunday Times titled Israel plans nuclear strike on Iran. So if you're wondering why it is I feel compelled to bring this subject up again, there you go. Israeli Prime Minister Ohmert recently acknowledged Israel was in possession of nuclear weapons too, and an entire post could be dedicated to the incredible hypocrisy seen expressed by our media in response, but what is likely a sober and factual report on impending nuclear war takes top billing today.
Israel is set to take the world into nuclear war. And why? We are told time and time again that it is because it can't permit Iran to possess nuclear weapons. The Sunday Times story even trots out the "Israel must be wiped off of the map" quote attributed to Iranian President Ahmadinejad as rationale, even though it's been shown that he never said any such thing. It is being drilled into our heads that a nuclear Iran must mean the end of Israel. That M.A.D., a policy that has kept the world free of nuclear war for over fifty years -- and despite the bitterest hostilities between opposing nations -- cannot possibly work between Israel and Iran. And so therefore America must attack, or at least, look the other way as Israel attacks in its stead.
Of course, this reasoning is flawed, its conclusion blatantly false. The established precedent is that M.A.D. works. Not only that, the precedent is that nations locked in cold war eventually tire of it and learn to accept the other side. I made this point before: if Iran had gone nuclear back in 1967, the internationally recognized border between Israel and Palestine would undoubtedly be the de facto border today and we'd likely see peace in that part of the world where we now see nothing but war. It is the huge imbalance of power in the
What he needs to do is find out why, from their mouths, they shut him down. Then, he can tell the rest of the world in order to make sure everyone knows about their policies and practices.
It appears that censoring one's blog is pretty much part of a big fuck you package that includes not replying to any of your emails. I am holding out no hope of getting any kind of response at this point.
(this is my last post I think, slashdot usually cuts me off at this point, oh the irony)
Find a web hoster that's sympathetic to your cause (meaning they won't drop you) and host your blog there.
This would be a good "Ask Slashdot" question, maybe if somebody else asked it it might be posted.
Where on the web can a person go to have highly controversial political content hosted? They all have clauses in their Terms of Service that let them drop you like a hot rock.
One call alleging anti-Semitism or hate speech and you're history it seems.
(Oh, and it is a violation of free speech. it simply isn't one actionable by the U.S. Constitution)
Technorati simply banned my site. Google first truncated links from other sites leading to pages on my blog, and when that wasn't enough, they simply had Blogger delete the blog.
No kiddie porn, no copyright violations, not even libel. Critical of America over the war on drugs and Israel over the war on terror though? You bet.
The posts that triggered this orgy of censorship saw me positing the likelihood that Israel had nuclear weapons forward-deployed in other nations. Shortly after the second post in the series, Mordechai Vanunu, the Israeli who blew the whistle on their nuke program, got arrested again. It would seem as though there are some subjects Israel would rather we didn't discuss. I guess I can understand that, but since when does Israel get to control what I can or can't say?
They want to pretend censorship like this is only taking place in places like China. That's bullshit. It's happening here in America and with ever increasing frequency.
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." -- Johnn F. Kennedy
Sensors indicate the phenomena is a form of information reference, however, scanners are unable to ascertain just what that information may be.
Spock, have you tried using Google News to find a link to the story that doesn't require registration?:::raises eyebrow not to convey fascination, but annoyance:::
And for a sample of two of course the results would be meaningless.
But if out of a sample of 10,000, 5,000 were experiencing toothaches, and it just happened that those same 5,000 were reading slashdot, things would be more interesting.
Dozens of people who believed the masts triggered symptoms such as anxiety, nausea and tiredness could not detect if signals were on or off in trials.
That's not the test. People can believe and are in fact poisoned by additives in our food and yet if pressed to detect if a given mean contained additives they wouldn't be able to tell.
The obvious way to conduct such a study would be to correlate the incidence of illness with the proximity to radio sources.
Ah, but I thought of this. We expressly disallow ISP's from doing this!:)
Actually... the hash would have to take the form of a signature, wouldn't it. The site would need to publish its public key in a well-known location, like the root, a la robots.txt. - CensoredbyTechnorati and now, Blogger too!
If that isn't desirable, do a patch to Apache that creates a header that holds a hash of the content. The hash gets calculated once for static content, which is usually the bulk of the traffic, no? So not too big of a hit.
Browser sees content. Browser sees hash. Browser compares the two...
You know, given the Vista experience, we're getting to the point where you know there's open source software afoot if the scanner simply runs without crashing something.
Yeah, this is the kind of shit I got when I said there weren't WMD's in Iraq, or that Al Qaeda had nothing to do with Iraq, or that we'd end up in a quagmire by invading Iraq, or that we'd be driven out of Afghanistan, and so on.
So no, my mind isn't fucked up, indeed, unlike you, I have one and I use it.
Combined with Senator Santorum's slip-of-the-tongue announcing summer terrorist attacks, and Homeland Security Chief Chertoff's "gut feeling" we'll be attacked this summer, I guess we can now assume the manner in which this attack will take place.
It will be a dirty bomb.
The New York Times story helps create a context in which the dirty bomb attack this summer by terrorists will be more believable. Not the part that we're attacked this summer. Or with a dirty bomb. The part where we're attacked by terrorists.
They can't afford another 9/11 or London Bombings -- where it is so clear that these were attacked orchestrated from within, or from Israel -- they have to dot every i and cross every t this time.
Santorum, Chertoff, The New York Times. Consider the sources here.
Slashdot Mirror
So it figures we'd be out a few laptops, yes?
Why does any of this shit surprise people today?
Wow, to be able to make light of a minor grammatical error in the face of further atrocity, it must really be nice to be you.
Is this the same band of rat monkeys at The New York Times who were busy ridiculing all of us in the aftermath of the 2000 and 2004 Presidential election who were crying foul and fraud and who were to a man and on every detail proven right?
And now they want to pose as the guarantors of our future democracy?
Why? So they can build back up their cred so when next racist Jews lust for Muslim blood they are better able to flip the switch?
God Damn The New York Times.
I'd agree that The New York Times tries to appear to be left wing, and on inconsequential matters it may succeed, but mongering for war the last time I checked was definitely not a liberal persuasion.
It isn't just the constant news coverage citing "unnamed sources" in an effort to implicate this or that group of Muslims in various imagined transgressions, even after they promised to swear off using unnamed sources, it's deciding to wait until after the 2004 election to tell us about Bush's illegal wiretapping, or not telling us about the 9-11 Commission Report citing American support for Israeli atrocities against Palestinians as the reason for the attack, or continually over-reporting acts of violence committed by Muslims against Jews while under-reporting acts of violence committed by Jews against Muslims (did you know that Israelis have killed nearly four times as many Muslims as vice versa? My point exactly.)
When you put it all together -- and by no means is the above a comprehensive list of their transgressions -- a picture emerges of a paper driven by racism and allegiance to Israel above all things, including America.
Everybody goes on about the corporate media when talking about media support for this war, well, here's some news: The New York Times is by far the worst offender in this regard, and it isn't corporate-owned at all! It's a family paper.
Ad Block them. Starve the war machine. Kill the propaganda machine before it succeeds in killing us.
It means that more people will read their insidious shit. They ridiculed all of us who challenged the 2004 election results. They've been championing the war on Iraq since before its inception. They're cheerleading right now for war on Iran.
And don't even get me started on their coverage of the war on drugs.
But here you all are, celebrating the fact that your generation's Goebbels is about to become even more destructive than it was before.
OK. The formatting is going to suck though...
.
M.A.D. R.I.P.
(If you haven't already done so, please read the Iranian nuke vs. Israeli nuke post, you can consider this post to be a continuation and/or expansion of the points made therein.)
M.A.D. of course stands for Mutual Assured Destruction.
It is what passes for sanity these days in international affairs. That
said, it is also enjoying over a half-century of success. M.A.D. is the
policy that justifies the nuclear arsenals being deployed throughout
the world. The Soviet Union had them because the U.S. had them. France
and the U.K. had them because the Soviet Union had them. China had them
because all of the above had them. India had them because of China,
Pakistan because of India. Now we see North Korea has them: they have
them because we have them, we're the adversary sitting on the other
side of the D.M.Z.
Every nation in possession of nuclear weapons
today has them because they're afraid some other nation has them and
they're afraid that if they don't similarly arm themselves, their
nation may only exist in the future as an entry in a history book.
Every
nation but one of course: Israel. Israel has no nuclear-armed
adversaries. To be sure, it has adversaries aplenty, arguably of its
own making, but it has demonstrated repeatedly now that its military --
as provided for by the U.S. taxpayer -- is handily capable of defending
against any manner of aggression these adversaries are capable of
producing.
The other way of saying this is that Israel is the
only nuclear nation in the world today that is not employing M.A.D. as
the rationale for possessing its nuclear arsenal. Israel is doing
something else.
(that's alarming because M.A.D., as policy, works. Israel pursuing some other policy therefore is really terrifying.)
Here is a story by The Sunday Times titled Israel plans nuclear strike on Iran
So if you're wondering why it is I feel compelled to bring this subject
up again, there you go. Israeli Prime Minister Ohmert recently
acknowledged Israel was in possession of nuclear weapons too, and an
entire post could be dedicated to the incredible hypocrisy seen
expressed by our media in response, but what is likely a sober and
factual report on impending nuclear war takes top billing today.
Israel
is set to take the world into nuclear war. And why? We are told time
and time again that it is because it can't permit Iran to possess
nuclear weapons. The Sunday Times story even trots out the
"Israel must be wiped off of the map" quote attributed to Iranian
President Ahmadinejad as rationale, even though it's been shown that he
never said any such thing. It is being drilled into our heads that a
nuclear Iran must mean the end of Israel. That M.A.D., a policy that
has kept the world free of nuclear war for over fifty years -- and
despite the bitterest hostilities between opposing nations -- cannot
possibly work between Israel and Iran. And so therefore America must
attack, or at least, look the other way as Israel attacks in its stead.
Of
course, this reasoning is flawed, its conclusion blatantly false. The
established precedent is that M.A.D. works. Not only that, the
precedent is that nations locked in cold war eventually tire of it and
learn to accept the other side. I made this point before: if Iran had
gone nuclear back in 1967, the internationally recognized border
between Israel and Palestine would undoubtedly be the de facto border
today and we'd likely see peace in that part of the world where we now
see nothing but war. It is the huge imbalance of power in the
It appears that censoring one's blog is pretty much part of a big fuck you package that includes not replying to any of your emails. I am holding out no hope of getting any kind of response at this point.
(this is my last post I think, slashdot usually cuts me off at this point, oh the irony)
--
Sig break!
If what you say is true, then why the censorship?
(could it be the Muslims?)
--
Censored by Technorati and now, Blogger too!
This would be a good "Ask Slashdot" question, maybe if somebody else asked it it might be posted.
Where on the web can a person go to have highly controversial political content hosted? They all have clauses in their Terms of Service that let them drop you like a hot rock.
One call alleging anti-Semitism or hate speech and you're history it seems.
(Oh, and it is a violation of free speech. it simply isn't one actionable by the U.S. Constitution)
--
Censored by Technorati and now, Blogger too!
Excuse me, but how do you know their actions weren't mandated by the government?
We certainly know they censor content when China asks them to.
Why wouldn't they do the same when the U.S. Government asks the same?
--
Censored by Technorati and now, Blogger too!
Technorati simply banned my site. Google first truncated links from other sites leading to pages on my blog, and when that wasn't enough, they simply had Blogger delete the blog.
No kiddie porn, no copyright violations, not even libel. Critical of America over the war on drugs and Israel over the war on terror though? You bet.
The posts that triggered this orgy of censorship saw me positing the likelihood that Israel had nuclear weapons forward-deployed in other nations. Shortly after the second post in the series, Mordechai Vanunu, the Israeli who blew the whistle on their nuke program, got arrested again. It would seem as though there are some subjects Israel would rather we didn't discuss. I guess I can understand that, but since when does Israel get to control what I can or can't say?
They want to pretend censorship like this is only taking place in places like China. That's bullshit. It's happening here in America and with ever increasing frequency.
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." -- Johnn F. Kennedy
--
Censored by Technorati and now, Blogger too!
Sensors indicate the phenomena is a form of information reference, however, scanners are unable to ascertain just what that information may be.
:::raises eyebrow not to convey fascination, but annoyance:::
Spock, have you tried using Google News to find a link to the story that doesn't require registration?
Doh! The message is coming on the viewscreen now Captain.
--
Censored by Technorati and now, Blogger too!
If a mobile phone mast falls in the forest and no hypochondriacs are there to feel relief, did it really radiate electromagnetic energy?
--
Censored by Technorati and now, Blogger too!
A random sample, yes. Of people. Who are living today. On Earth.
This Earth, not some other Earth.
--
Censored by Technorati and now, Blogger too!
And for a sample of two of course the results would be meaningless.
But if out of a sample of 10,000, 5,000 were experiencing toothaches, and it just happened that those same 5,000 were reading slashdot, things would be more interesting.
--
Censored by Technorati and now, Blogger too!
The obvious way to conduct such a study would be to correlate the incidence of illness with the proximity to radio sources.
--
Censored by Technorati and now, Blogger too!
Oh fuck, forgot my sig.
--
Censored by Technorati and now, Blogger too!
Not if you put a hash in a header... ermm....
Hey man, I was just trying to get first post, ya know? How the fuck am I supposed to fix this shit in the fifty seconds I had to write this shit down.
Why no good for Ajax? Whether it's xml or json, it's still content, and there are still headers, no?
--
Censored by Technorati and now, Blogger too!
Ah, but I thought of this. We expressly disallow ISP's from doing this! :)
Actually... the hash would have to take the form of a signature, wouldn't it. The site would
need to publish its public key in a well-known location, like the root, a la robots.txt.
-
Censored by Technorati and now, Blogger too!
If that isn't desirable, do a patch to Apache that creates a header that holds a hash of the content.
The hash gets calculated once for static content, which is usually the bulk of the traffic, no? So
not too big of a hit.
Browser sees content. Browser sees hash. Browser compares the two...
--
Censored by Technorati and now, Blogger too!
...by threading. That description makes me want to go back to my abacus.
--
Censored by Technorati and now, Blogger too!
You know, given the Vista experience, we're getting to the point where you know there's open source software afoot if the scanner simply runs without crashing something.
--
Censored by Technorati
Yeah, this is the kind of shit I got when I said there weren't WMD's in Iraq, or that Al Qaeda had nothing to do with Iraq, or that we'd end up in a quagmire by invading Iraq, or that we'd be driven out of Afghanistan, and so on.
So no, my mind isn't fucked up, indeed, unlike you, I have one and I use it.
Fucking sheep.
Combined with Senator Santorum's slip-of-the-tongue announcing summer terrorist attacks, and Homeland Security Chief Chertoff's "gut feeling" we'll be attacked this summer, I guess we can now assume the manner in which this attack will take place.
It will be a dirty bomb.
The New York Times story helps create a context in which the dirty bomb attack this summer by terrorists will be more believable. Not the part that we're attacked this summer. Or with a dirty bomb. The part where we're attacked by terrorists.
They can't afford another 9/11 or London Bombings -- where it is so clear that these were attacked orchestrated from within, or from Israel -- they have to dot every i and cross every t this time.
Santorum, Chertoff, The New York Times. Consider the sources here.
--
Censored by Technorati